Box Right

The bar-room-brawl known as redistricting in Colorado is down to the final 3 days.

Kumbaya? I got your Kumbaya right here.

With House Republicans and Senate Democrats at an impasse that is starting to look more and more difficult to unwind, we still haven't a faint clue where John Hickenlooper stands on the last outstanding issue…or for that matter, on any of the major issues debated at any time during the redistricting punching match.

Sure we cheered him for his late entry into the debate, but at this point leadership means rolling up your sleeves and hammering out a deal on the details.

Unfortunately, leadership is the exact opposite of what Hick has given on redistricting…it has been true from the start, and it is true now, in these final days of tough negotiation.

Uppermost among the remaining disputes is whether the rural counties that are home to the proposed expansion of Pinon Canyon bombing range should be gerrymandered into the same district that claims the military stronghold of El Paso County.

We are not entering the fray over the proposed Pinon Canyon expansion one way or the other, but if John Hickenlooper is as impassioned about protecting the interests of those ranchers in S.E. Colorado as he says he is, shouldn't he tell the Senate Democrats to stand down and remove these rural counties from a Congressional district dominated by El Paso county?

The answer is obvious…of course.

If Hick is the sworn friend of the ranchers in the way he has said he is, the Governor should settle the score on behalf of the ranchers…and House Republicans.

If Hick continues to sit on the sidelines while the Senate Dems plays games on Pinon Canyon, though, Hick's allegiances to party (at the expense of these ranchers) will be clear for the world to see.

The clock is ticking and, on this issue, memories are long.

So which one will it be Governor; your political party, or the ranchers you claim to support?

Gardner is laughing because, as the nation considers the national security implications of killing Osama Bin Laden, and wrestles with would-be solutions to the nation's debt crisis, Brandon Shaffer — Gardner's likely opponent next fall — is providing leadership on a different issue: the grave public policy challenge of flower shop fraud.

As America focuses on this:

Brandon Shaffer has eyes on this prize:

Brandon Shaffer, widely viewed as having the temperament and intellect of a bar room bouncer, is quickly proving the narrative true. That Shaffer would ever contemplate such an embarrassingly "small" proposition under any circumstance is, well, small.

That he would embrace such an infinitesimal and juvenile flower shop initiative before embarking on the campaign of his life suggests that the Senate President is something of a wilting political flower too.

Brandon Shaffer’s lame brained floral stunt may get him a discount on his next batch of roses, but it isn’t going to help plant him in Congress. It just makes him seem like the political lightweight that Republican operatives have always said he is.

Only days after bin Laden took one in the eye, Islamists are taking it upon themselves to poke each other in the eye, with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei poking another crazy Islamist in the eye — this time his own President and Kook-in-Chief, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Reports have emerged from Iran that Ahmadinejad and many members of his inner circle have become too crazy for Khamenei, with many of Ahmadinejad's top aides being arrested over charges of sorcery and invoking spirits (djinns). This comes after other reports of disobedience of Ahmadinejad who protested harshly the reinstatement by Khamenei of an intelligence chief he fired weeks prior.

But the feud has taken a metaphysical turn following the release of an Iranian documentary alleging the imminent return of the Hidden Imam Mahdi – the revered saviour of Shia Islam, whose reappearance is anticipated by believers in a manner comparable to that with which Christian fundamentalists anticipate the second coming of Jesus.

Conservative clerics, who say that the Mahdi's return cannot be predicted, have accused a "deviant current" within the president's inner circle, including Mashaei, of being responsible for the film.

When hardline Islamists who stone women to death for being raped can't agree on what constitutes crazy, you know things are not well in the netherworld of Crazy Caliphate City.

Crazy is in the eye of the beholder, and with bin Laden missing his, Islamists' schizophrenic compass of crazy is out of wack, leaving them confused as to which direction to pray.

The protest was led by Boulder 350, a group so organized that they haven't updated their website in six months. One thing we did find on their website is that their lead benefactor is the City of Boulder. No wonder no one wants to be included with Boulder in redistricting.

They were protesting Gardner's vote taking power away from the unelected bureaucracy at the Preble's Jumping Mouse Society, aka the EPA, to regulate carbon dioxide and putting it back in the hands of the people's representatives in Congress. The Green Machine was not pleased that their patrons at the EPA would be unable to rule by regulation and instead the elected representatives in Congress would be responsible for deciding an issue that would have MASSIVE economic implications.

Don't believe us when we say MASSIVE economic implications, liberals? Just ask President Obama, who explains but one part of the economic devastation that would be caused:

With Congressman Gardner raising more than any other member of the Colorado delegation in the first quarter, and his potential opponent, Brandon Shaffer, having a hard time even proposing reasonable Congressional district lines without angering the entire Eastern Plains, we'd say the enviros are just pissing in the wind.

On FOX 31 last night, political reporter did a sit-down with Governor John Hickenlooper for one of the School Cuts 101 series segments. The result? Unremarkable. Hick has been focused on budget issues, rightly so, and education reform barely shows up on his radar screen.

Lt. Gov. Joe Garcia is the administration's point-man on education issues. Last week at the Capitol he presented the three-point education agenda. Finding money to implement SB 191 — last year's significant teacher and principal evaluation bill — is a worthy cause. But tackling the state's serious 3rd grade literacy shortcomings by traveling the state to ask school districts for their input? Sorry. Try this approach instead. (The third part of the agenda, promoting college completion through the implementation of statewide articulation agreements, is outside my expertise.)

But most of the questions Stokols posed to the governor are largely predicated on some other parts of the School Cuts 101 series. Mainly first, should Colorado updated its school funding model based on an Oregon proposal that allots a share of dollars based on performance? (The idea has some merit in theory, but the Cascade State approach dangerously seeks to consolidate and centralize power.)

As you can see, the news team could have done any of these stories by traveling within Colorado — though the blended learning piece would be enhanced by a visit to the successful Carpe Diem Collegiate charter school in Yuma, Arizona, or either of the Rocketship schools in San Jose, California. Both are getting remarkable results for less dollars per student.

For those who want to look to the future and seize the moment for real lasting reforms, I recommend the new book Customized Schooling as one good place to start. You can listen to a recent podcast interview I did with co-author Rick Hess from the American Enterprise Institute to get a flavor of the call for promoting “educational choice” more than “school choice,” unbundling school services, and what that all might portend.

This week's FOX 31 School Cuts 101 series may or may not make great television. But I think ultimately they missed a great opportunity to shine light on reforms and innovations that hold the greatest promise to make education a more productive enterprise on a large scale — an enterprise that ultimately meets parental demand and prepares students to be literate, thoughtful citizens and well prepared for the competitive job market of the 21st century.

Until the recent “crisis” the public school system has mostly lived on ever-rising per-pupil funding, and fiscal realities show us the model is no longer sustainable. Maybe FOX 31 or one of the other networks will pick up with a School Cuts 102 course that delves into some or all of the innovations I've given you a glimpse of here. It's time to look at making real changes.

Two great articles out today by the Wall Street Journal examine two big problems with Obama: his arrogance and his ignorance.

His ignorance stems from his inability to recognize the value in interrogations with a little extra oomph for high level al Qaeda terrorists who don't want to give up key intelligence in other ways. Check out former Attorney General Michael Mukasey's article on the real story behind interrogation intel:

Consider how the intelligence that led to bin Laden came to hand. It began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information—including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.

That regimen of harsh interrogation was used on KSM after another detainee, Abu Zubaydeh, was subjected to the same techniques. When he broke, he said that he and other members of al Qaeda were obligated to resist only until they could no longer do so, at which point it became permissible for them to yield. "Do this for all the brothers," he advised his interrogators.

The second piece is about Obama's Orwellian intention to make every company who wants to do business with the federal government disclose all its political donations. In other words, he wants only Democrat donors doing business with his government. The arrogance that leads him to believe this is the right move is astounding:

Under the order, all companies (and their officers) would be required to list their political donations as a condition to bidding for government contracts. Companies can bid and lose out for the sin of donating to Republicans. Or they can protect their livelihoods by halting donations to the GOP altogether—which is the White House's real aim. Think of it as "not-pay to play."

Whatever you call it, the order amounts to the White House brazenly directing the power of government against its political opponents—and at a time when the president claims to want cooperation on the budget and other issues. Senate Republicans from Mitch McConnell to Susan Collins are fuming, warning this is one political sucker punch too far, an unabashedly partisan move that will damage Senate work.

Last nights' underwhelming first Republican Presidential primary debate with Tim Pawlenty and gang was more about who is not going to be President than who has a shot. In a strangely late blooming primary season compared to last cycle, the debate occurred at an awkward time in the process. No serious candidate has declared their full campaign yet, and there are plenty of potential candidates who have made no serious moves towards a run.

From a purely analytical point of view, there was no one on stage, other than Tim Pawlenty, that has a chance at being the nominee. They all have their supporting roles to play in the nomination, but stand no realistic shot at the brass ring.

Below is our analysis of how the participants stacked up.

Tim Pawlenty: The one interesting moment for TPaw was when he made a clear apology for his previous support for cap and trade. In what may become one of the wedges between him and Romney, Pawlenty apologized for his mistake and said he won't try to “bob and weave it” in a clear comparison to Romney's refusing to apologize for Romneycare. But when asked about Romneycare directly, Pawlenty said he wouldn't criticize it without Romney here to defend himself. Overall, the debate was a bit of a wash for Pawlenty without Romney there.

Republicans hoping for an ideologically pure candidate may be disappointed. Romney's healthcare faux pas, and Pawlenty's cap-and-trade lapse, are both enormous stumbling blocks for their candidacies.

Herman Cain: He is an interesting guy, with a business and talk radio background, but with no elected office experience stands virtually no shot at the nomination. Last night he proved the same, with nothing to make him stand out as a candidate, rather than a personality. He is a strong speaker, but will always struggle to raise the money to make him a contender. His lack of foreign policy experience also shone through, according to the Washington Post's Chris Cilizza:

He stumbled on foreign policy, saying that when it came to Afghanistan he would rely on “the experts and their advice and their input.” In a debate with more seasoned candidates the gaps in his experience will be more apparent.

Rick Santorum: While there currently is a space for a social conservative to fill, Santorum won't be it. In a question about a book he wrote where he implied radical feminism was responsible for women working outside the house, he bumbled his response. Social conservatives are looking for a spokesman, but an effective one who has their values and can earn a wide swath of support. Someone like Huckabee.

Anyway, Santorum will never be the nominee for one reason. Google his name. 'Nuff said.

Ron Paul: Despite a second libertarian candidate on stage in Gary Johnson, Paul proved he's the original and only Tea Party/Liberty insurgent worth watching in the race so far. He is a true believer and that genuineness can come across well. Take for example his argument for the legalization of drugs. He earned applause from the crowd for arguing that most people wouldn't do heroin if it became legal, and he doesn't need the government to tell him heroin is bad. The moderator joked he never thought he'd see heroin get applause in South Carolina. But at the end of the day a candidate for legalizing heroin will never be the nominee.

Gary Johnson: Why is he running? With Ron Paul in the race, Johnson just feels like filler. He didn't do himself any favors by insulting Sarah Palin when he said he wouldn't “crawl on his hands and knees” like Palin has on her reality show. He also quickly became the drug candidate, when he went on at length about his support for legalization and taxation of marijuana. Pigeonholed already.

The debate was more or less useless, proving what everyone knew at the beginning of the night: only Pawlenty has a chance of becoming President. Everyone else is but bit players, soaking up their 15 minutes of fame.

After spending the better part of 6 weeks hiding from the redistricting fracas, Democratic wonder boy John Hickenlooper is now serving waffles on another big ticket item — whether to sign a bill for a CHP+ co-pay requirement that would force a hint of market behavior into the government healthcare program, and generate money for the state along the way.

The Children's Basic Healthcare Plan (CHP+) co-pay plan was a major part of the budget compromise that followed weeks of partisan posturing on the state's annual spending plan.

The monthly premiums would only be required of families with household incomes of between 205 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty level, a class of people who were added in an eligibility expansion in 2009 that was funded by a new fee on hospitals. Under the expansion, a family of four with a total income of $55,875 per year could qualify for CHP+.

…Twenty-nine states charge some kind of monthly premium for their comparable CHP+ programs, while Colorado and three other states charge an annual enrollment fee.

Republicans pointed out the reason for the bill:

Rep. Cheri Gerou, R-Evergreen, is co-sponsoring the bill with Hodge and said Republicans question whether the state can afford to cover the class of children under the expanded eligibility. "I'm not sure this is a promise that should have been made," Gerou said.

Brophy said there's also an element of personal responsibility at play. "I think people will appreciate their health care more and use it more wisely," he said, "when they participate in paying for it and they have a little skin in the game."

After Senate Democrats voted for the bill, they got cold feet. Now, John Hickenlooper is too — or apparently is too, or something to that effect.

Say what you want about Hick: he isn't a con artist. We predict he will keep his word and sign the bill.

We just think it is peculiar that the only signals that ever come from the Hickenklooper Administration these days seem to be mixed ones.

Colorado needs a Governor who is CEO and in-charge. Hick's bout of flim-flam in the second half of this legislative session is peculiar and unpleasant for those hoping he would forcefully drive the ship of state.

Republicans are winning the redistricting battle right now for two reasons: their ideas are supported by editorial boards across the state and Democrats talking points fall apart on their face when you dig just a little into them.

We've pretty clearly laid out the case that Republicans fight to protect rural Colorado and communities of interest ranging from the West Slope to the five military bases in El Paso County is supported by a vast majority of people, high profile Democrats included. What we haven't addressed and do so below is the specious arguments being put forward by Democrats through their talking points on “competitiveness” and “Congressman for Life.”

“Congressman for Life”: We find this to be very ironic coming from the Democrats, as the longest serving member of the Colorado Congressional delegation is Denver Democrat Diana DeGette, and the Democrat proposed map does nothing to change that. In fact, the two longest serving Congressional representatives are Democrats.

Beyond that, Colorado has one of the most junior Congressional delegations in the country, with two freshman, two second termers, two third termers and one Congresswoman for Life, Democrat Diana DeGette. Many have argued that Colorado's junior delegation means less clout in Congress, which directly harms the strength of Coloradans voice in Washington. Regardless of where you come down on seniority in Congress, it is beyond ridiculous to argue Colorado has anything close to a system that allows “Congressman for Life” (except for DeGette).

“Competitiveness”: This is another talking point that sounds nice, but simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Colorado is one of the most competitive states in the country from Congress to President. Recall that in 2004 Colorado voted for George W Bush and the two Salazar brothers in the same election. The most recent election was virtually a tie, with a split in power in the State Legislature and a split in statewide offices won by both parties.

Just look at our Congressional delegation makeup. In 2006, it was 4 Democrats to 3 Republicans. In 2008, it became 5 Democrats to 2 Republicans. And then in the most recent election it became 4 Republicans to 3 Democrats. What about that is not competitive?????

What Democrats mean when they say “competitiveness” is making it easier for Democrats to win electoral competitions. It's a partisan power grab according to the Washington Post.

Democrats are in full retreat mode, changing their map to face political realities, such as not splitting the West Slope and not putting Boulder in with Grand Junction. In addition to their ideas, their talking points fail as well, leaving them nowhere to go but to the warm embrace of the Republican map.

Anyway, looking for real ideas for how to make education spending more productive and promote better outcomes for students? One good place to start is my chapter on K-12 for the Independence Institute's Citizens' Budget. Or check out what Colorado school districts like Douglas County and Falcon 49 are up to. More on that later… [emphasis added]

In hindsight, we're probably just on the same wavelength. Or maybe it's impossible for FOX 31 to ignore the groundbreaking educational changes emanating out of Douglas County. In any case, I'm pleased to see their coverage of the suburban school district's Choice Scholarship Program, along with a great example of how the program expands options for parents. For the most part, beautiful. Of course, being a news story, they rightfully reported the views of the opposition:

“I feel that the program will take money away from schools in a time when we desperately need money. We are cutting everything,” said Delana Maynes, with Taxpayers for Public Education. “You still have to pay teachers. You still have to turn on lights.”

Maynes may have missed the clear explanation of how the Choice Scholarship program will save the district money — $400,000 in Year 1 alone, not to mention the hard-to-calculate future savings from not having to construct as many schools and other facilities in the growing district. In the report Posey describes Maynes as “a Douglas County parent who does not believe taxpayer money should be going to private schools or religious schools….” Fair enough, as this meshes with a statement from the “Taxpayers for Public Schools” website:

Meanwhile, Douglas County's Blueprint for School Choice includes a wide range of overlooked improvements — from more parent-friendly open enrollment policies to greater equity for charter schools and even to improved services for interested home education families. My Independence Institute colleague Pam Benigno and I were honored to serve on the district's School Choice Task Force that helped to craft the policy reform ideas.